On
April 11, 2016, the plaintiff, Granville J. Davis
(“Davis”), on behalf of his deceased daughter,
Suzanne Dawn Davis (“the claimant”), filed a
complaint against the defendant, the Acting Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner”) (Dkt. No. 1). In
the complaint, Davis sought review of the Commissioner's
final decision denying an award of Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”) to the claimant, who suffered from
bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, personality disorder, and
polysubstance disorder. He contended that the decision was
“neither supported by substantial evidence nor based on
a correct application of the law.” Id. at
3.[1]

Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the matter was
referred to the Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States
Magistrate Judge, for initial review. On July 11, 2016, Davis
filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 10). After
being granted leave to file nunc pro tunc due to an
administrative error (Dkt. No. 12), the Commissioner filed a
motion for summary judgment on August 22, 2016 (Dkt. No. 14).

In an
Amended Report and Recommendation (“Amended
R&R”)[2] dated August 8, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Aloi recommended that the Court grant Davis's motion for
summary judgment, deny the Commissioner's motion for
summary judgment, reverse the Commissioner's decision,
and remand this case to the Commissioner for the sole purpose
of calculating benefits (Dkt. No. 16). As an initial matter,
he reasoned that the administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) had failed to support his decision with
substantial evidence because he had based it “on his
own lay interpretation of the medical evidence.”
Id. at 40. For instance, the ALJ characterized the
claimant's mental status examinations (“MSE”)
as “normal, ” but failed to explain how
particular MSE findings contradicted other evidence of the
claimant's limitations. Id. at 44. He also
selectively cited instances when the claimant reported
feeling better, but failed to acknowledge that those reports
were exceptional. Id. at 46.

As a
result, Magistrate Judge Aloi reasoned that the ALJ
impermissibly had discounted the opinion of Davis's
treating physician of seven years, choosing instead to credit
a consultative examiner who saw the claimant only twice.
Id. at 40. Moreover, the Amended R&R found that
the ALJ improperly had discounted the claimant's
credibility based primarily on his lay interpretation of
medical evidence and her purportedly “significant daily
activities.” Id. at 58-60. Noting that
reopening the record would serve no purpose and that this is
the second time the ALJ improperly discounted the
claimant's treating physician and credibility, Magistrate
Judge Aloi recommended not only that the Commissioner's
decision be reversed, but that the case be remanded for the
award of benefits rather than further consideration.
Id. at 66-67.

The
Amended R&R also informed the parties of their right to
file “written objections identifying the portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made,
and the basis for such objections.” Id. at 67.
It further warned that the failure to do so may result in
waiver of the right to appeal. Id. Despite receiving
the Amended R&R through the Court's electronic filing
system, neither party has filed any objections to the
recommendations.

“The
Court will review de novo any portions of the magistrate
judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific
objection is made . . . and the Court may adopt, without
explanation, any of the magistrate judge's
recommendations to which the prisoner does not object.”
Dellacirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600,
603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Failure to file specific
objections waives appellate review of both factual and legal
questions. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d
91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

Having
received no objections to the R&R, the Court has no duty
to conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge
Aloi's findings. Furthermore, following a review of the
Amended R&R and the record for clear error, the Court
adopts the opinion of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons
discussed in the Amended R&R (Dkt. No. 16).

In
conclusion, the Court:

1) ADOPTS the Amended R&R (Dkt. No. 16);

2) DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate the
original Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15);

5) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.